I recently had a Celeron 500 that I wanted to install for my flatmate to use as an internet/email machine. All evidence points to the 2.6 kernel being better on old hardware than 2.4, and in general support for hardware increases as you have newer software, so I thought I'd try installing Fedora Core 2 (then test3) on the machine. I've heard good things about the XFCE desktop environment, so I installed that. The machine started out with 64mb of RAM and took an ice age to install (I think it's about the RPM database needing to be in RAM at install time). It quickly got upgraded to 192mb RAM, which isn't exactly "new modern specs" but is a machine that was better specced than many machines we had at the recent installfest. I ran a quick, responsive, usable desktop environment on a 286 at 10Mhz. Linux was basically unusable on this machine. Software took an age to load, you could hardly run two things at the same time, and it was constantly in swap. The options seemed to be "run Windows 98" (the OS the machine was originally shipped with), or get some sort of Linux distribution that was around the same age. The Fedora Legacy project provides security updates for Red Hat as far back as 7.3, but I really don't want to run old software. In the end I found a surprising third option - I installed Windows XP and turned off most of the flash visual bits and pieces, and ended up with a usable machine running modern software. Not something that I wanted to have to do! There's a long standing belief that Linux can be used to revitalise old hardware. Short of using a terminal server of some description (which wasn't an option in this case), is this true? Craig
Craig Box wrote:
There's a long standing belief that Linux can be used to revitalise old hardware. Short of using a terminal server of some description (which wasn't an option in this case), is this true?
What makes Linux so suitable for running on ancient hardware is that it gives you the option not to waste valuable system resources running a graphical user interface on your firewall. Obviously that is not an option for a desktop system and you are likely to find that Windows 98SE performs a whole lot better than a recent Linux distribution running GNOME or KDE. Anyone who thinks that Linux will magically turn their old 486 into an Athlon is dreaming. I did find that unlike Fedora Core 1 (2.4 kernel), Fedora Core 2 (2.6 kernel) actually feels a lot more responsive on my 2.4GHz P4 than Windows XP though... -- Matthias
I have RedHat 9 running on a Celeron 400 (256MB RAM) here. And I just did a drive switch-a-roo on a Celeron 800 running Fedora Core 1. Both machines while not fast are usable and their users don't complain about the speed. But then they probably don't know any better. :) I must admit that FC1 on a Celeron 2.4 can be a tad slow. Loading Mozilla takes a few seconds the first time you load it and stuff like that. I've not had a chance to install FC2 on my P4 2.6 yet. Maybe next week end. Will see if it feels faster/better. Regards On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 19:04, Matthias Dallmeier wrote:
Craig Box wrote:
There's a long standing belief that Linux can be used to revitalise old hardware. Short of using a terminal server of some description (which wasn't an option in this case), is this true?
What makes Linux so suitable for running on ancient hardware is that it gives you the option not to waste valuable system resources running a graphical user interface on your firewall. Obviously that is not an option for a desktop system and you are likely to find that Windows 98SE performs a whole lot better than a recent Linux distribution running GNOME or KDE. Anyone who thinks that Linux will magically turn their old 486 into an Athlon is dreaming. I did find that unlike Fedora Core 1 (2.4 kernel), Fedora Core 2 (2.6 kernel) actually feels a lot more responsive on my 2.4GHz P4 than Windows XP though...
-- Matthias
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
-- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver.jones(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com
Running old software on new hardware can be a real pain too. Especially in the DOS/Windows world. Which is why we need things like "DosBox" http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/ Regards On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 18:26, Craig Box wrote:
I recently had a Celeron 500 that I wanted to install for my flatmate to use as an internet/email machine.
All evidence points to the 2.6 kernel being better on old hardware than 2.4, and in general support for hardware increases as you have newer software, so I thought I'd try installing Fedora Core 2 (then test3) on the machine. I've heard good things about the XFCE desktop environment, so I installed that.
-- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver.jones(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com
There's a long standing belief that Linux can be used to revitalise old hardware. Short of using a terminal server of some description (which wasn't an option in this case), is this true?
I hold this belief in reference to linux as a server. There is nothing wrong with a c500 for any one of file / print / mail / web / ftp / dns servers or possibly several thereof, providing the load is not too great. A firewall is also a good option, and you'll be doing well to stress a c500 as a firewall on most Internet connections you are likely to get in NZ. I wouldn't run all those services for a 50-machine network on a c500. I was thinking about this problem the other day, and I can't honestly remember the last time I saw Linux touted as being better on the desktop. It certainly hasn't been better on the desktop since GNOME and KDE became the de facto standards of desktop linux. If you were to run blackbox or FVWM2 or similar as the desktop on that machine, it would like you a lot more. You'll still have issues with OOo and Mozilla, I'm guessing :) I fondly remember the hey-day of the Enlightenment window manager. It was cool, it was different, it was excessive eye candy. It also made my p2-266 w 128 MB of ram cry. This was a machine that ran Windows 98 perfectly fine, and my linux install with FVWM2 as the window manager screamed along - it beat Windows 98 hands down. Not so enlightenment, however.
Short and sweet. Look up featherlinux. http://featherlinux.berlios.de or DSL - Damn Small Linux. I have a 486 running dsl ok, not super fast but ok, and with 32 meg of ram, on a p233 mobile with mmx ( not a PII ) laptop with 64 meg of ram its faster than win 98 on the same machine. its a knoppix remaster of 64 megs, has wireless, fluxbox as the desktop, and no accelerated X but for wordprocessing , e-mail (sypleed) and browsing (dillo and I have installed firefox too) its more than fast enough. Vncviwer and lots of apps are standard, and you can live cd with save your personal stuff on pedrive, hard drive (fat32) or floppy, or install to hard drive and use it as your distro. give it a try and you'll feel better on a celeron 500 this baby will fly. forget the big stuff, look for the right distro, or roll your own with only what you need, and keep it small. Craig Box wrote:
I recently had a Celeron 500 that I wanted to install for my flatmate to use as an internet/email machine.
All evidence points to the 2.6 kernel being better on old hardware than 2.4, and in general support for hardware increases as you have newer software, so I thought I'd try installing Fedora Core 2 (then test3) on the machine. I've heard good things about the XFCE desktop environment, so I installed that.
The machine started out with 64mb of RAM and took an ice age to install (I think it's about the RPM database needing to be in RAM at install time). It quickly got upgraded to 192mb RAM, which isn't exactly "new modern specs" but is a machine that was better specced than many machines we had at the recent installfest.
I ran a quick, responsive, usable desktop environment on a 286 at 10Mhz. Linux was basically unusable on this machine. Software took an age to load, you could hardly run two things at the same time, and it was constantly in swap. The options seemed to be "run Windows 98" (the OS the machine was originally shipped with), or get some sort of Linux distribution that was around the same age. The Fedora Legacy project provides security updates for Red Hat as far back as 7.3, but I really don't want to run old software. In the end I found a surprising third option - I installed Windows XP and turned off most of the flash visual bits and pieces, and ended up with a usable machine running modern software. Not something that I wanted to have to do!
There's a long standing belief that Linux can be used to revitalise old hardware. Short of using a terminal server of some description (which wasn't an option in this case), is this true?
Craig
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
oh and if you want the fedora base and rpm suport I think puppry has these too But I am hooked on featherlinux personally, Read the forums and look at robs level of comitment and you will see why. Gavin Denby wrote:
Short and sweet. Look up featherlinux. http://featherlinux.berlios.de or DSL - Damn Small Linux.
I have a 486 running dsl ok, not super fast but ok, and with 32 meg of ram, on a p233 mobile with mmx ( not a PII ) laptop with 64 meg of ram its faster than win 98 on the same machine.
its a knoppix remaster of 64 megs, has wireless, fluxbox as the desktop, and no accelerated X but for wordprocessing , e-mail (sypleed) and browsing (dillo and I have installed firefox too) its more than fast enough. Vncviwer and lots of apps are standard, and you can live cd with save your personal stuff on pedrive, hard drive (fat32) or floppy, or install to hard drive and use it as your distro.
give it a try and you'll feel better
on a celeron 500 this baby will fly.
forget the big stuff, look for the right distro, or roll your own with only what you need, and keep it small.
Craig Box wrote:
I recently had a Celeron 500 that I wanted to install for my flatmate to use as an internet/email machine.
All evidence points to the 2.6 kernel being better on old hardware than 2.4, and in general support for hardware increases as you have newer software, so I thought I'd try installing Fedora Core 2 (then test3) on the machine. I've heard good things about the XFCE desktop environment, so I installed that.
The machine started out with 64mb of RAM and took an ice age to install (I think it's about the RPM database needing to be in RAM at install time). It quickly got upgraded to 192mb RAM, which isn't exactly "new modern specs" but is a machine that was better specced than many machines we had at the recent installfest.
I ran a quick, responsive, usable desktop environment on a 286 at 10Mhz. Linux was basically unusable on this machine. Software took an age to load, you could hardly run two things at the same time, and it was constantly in swap. The options seemed to be "run Windows 98" (the OS the machine was originally shipped with), or get some sort of Linux distribution that was around the same age. The Fedora Legacy project provides security updates for Red Hat as far back as 7.3, but I really don't want to run old software. In the end I found a surprising third option - I installed Windows XP and turned off most of the flash visual bits and pieces, and ended up with a usable machine running modern software. Not something that I wanted to have to do!
There's a long standing belief that Linux can be used to revitalise old hardware. Short of using a terminal server of some description (which wasn't an option in this case), is this true? Craig
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
Wow, took at least four replies to get Damn Small Linux mentioned! :)
Short and sweet. Look up featherlinux. http://featherlinux.berlios.de or DSL - Damn Small Linux.
its a knoppix remaster of 64 megs, has wireless, fluxbox as the desktop, and no accelerated X but for wordprocessing , e-mail (sypleed) and browsing (dillo and I have installed firefox too) its more than fast enough. Vncviwer and lots of apps are standard, and you can live cd with save your personal stuff on pedrive, hard drive (fat32) or floppy, or install to hard drive and use it as your distro.
Thanks Gavin, but I don't want Sylpheed, I want Evolution or possibly Thunderbird. I don't want dillo, I want a Mozilla. And I want OpenOffice.org. I want equivalent functionality to what I would expect on a common Windows machine. I know if you want to run tiny distributions on tiny hardware you can. What I want is to run modern applications on older hardware. If modern applications aren't architected to support this, then that is the problem. Craig
* Craig Box <craig(a)dubculture.co.nz> [2004-05-23 11:47]:
Thanks Gavin, but I don't want Sylpheed, I want Evolution or possibly Thunderbird. I don't want dillo, I want a Mozilla. And I want OpenOffice.org. I want equivalent functionality to what I would expect on a common Windows machine.
Thunderbird, Mozilla, and OpenOffice will crawl on your machine under Windows just as much as they do under Linux.
I know if you want to run tiny distributions on tiny hardware you can. What I want is to run modern applications on older hardware. If modern applications aren't architected to support this, then that is the problem.
That is the problem indeed. Generally you will find that there is no such thing as "enough memory"; other than, though, older hardware should be able to keep up somewhat. Before I got my current 1.5 GHz Athlon system (XP 1800+), I used to run a PII-450 with 256MB RAM. Mozilla was sluggish -- Opera was fine though. OOo took a long time to load, but ran decently. Linux itself (Slackware) booted in about 55 seconds, while the Athlon brought this down to 40. The problem is really the apps (and possibly Xfree 4.x) much more so than the system. -- Regards, Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
On Sunday 23 May 2004 21:46, Craig Box wrote:
... ... What I want is to run modern applications on older hardware. If modern applications aren't architected to support this, then that is the problem. ...
It is not uncommon for programmers to write applications that are sluggish on today's hardware while banking on Moore's Law. So the statement: "What I want is to run modern applications on older hardware." produced a chuckle. Your XP example doesn't surprise me at all though. What iteration of x86 was your Linux software compiled for? I mean X, your WM, your apps and the kernel?
I ran a quick, responsive, usable desktop environment on a 286 at 10Mhz
What environment was that? /sid.
* s swami <sns(a)paradise.net.nz> [2004-05-23 22:16]:
On Sunday 23 May 2004 21:46, Craig Box wrote:
I ran a quick, responsive, usable desktop environment on a 286 at 10Mhz
What environment was that?
Probably Geoworks. http://toastytech.com/guis/geos12.html -- Regards, Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
... What I want is to run modern applications on older hardware. If modern applications aren't architected to support this, then that is the problem. ...
It is not uncommon for programmers to write applications that are sluggish on today's hardware while banking on Moore's Law. So the statement: "What I want is to run modern applications on older hardware." produced a chuckle.
While I see what you're saying, especially with reference to the commercial software world, there must be a huge market full of "now - 1" hardware. A I don't want to run Linux on a 286 - the machine was a Celeron 500, machines of which era are probably the bottom end of the machines I would now consider useful. Why aren't people writing software to capture this market? Especially in the open source area, where people go on about how they associate free software with free hardware and speculate that people who can afford high end machines can afford software to run on them. Games can offer a contrived example - while everyone loves Quake and its bretheren, the best selling game of all time is The Sims, which is hardly driving forth the 3D graphics industry!
Your XP example doesn't surprise me at all though. What iteration of x86 was your Linux software compiled for? I mean X, your WM, your apps and the kernel?
I can only assume that it's an i686 kernel and i386 apps. Fairly standard. Perry asked me a similar question last night: "have you tried running a distribution that came out at the same time as Windows XP?" Windows XP Pro was released on 25-Oct-2001. It seems that the release of Linux that was 'new' at the time will have been Red Hat 7.2 on 22 October 2001. I had previously thought it to be RH8, which actually came out a year later on 30 Sep 2002. (See http://www.theosfiles.com). I'm told that kernel 2.6 is better, more responsive, etc, than 2.4 for desktop use, even (especially!) on older hardware. Support for RH7.2 was available until this week on Fedora Legacy, however it's being dropped, along with support for RH8, with the expectation that people can easily migrate to the final release in each tree (7.3/9) or backport the 7.3/9 packages themselves. I actually believe, perhaps somewhat incorrectly, that running the latest versions of software is a good thing, and that FC2 with all the extraneous services disabled could be faster than RH8. RH7.x wouldn't meet the requirements of running modern software (predating GTK2 for a start). Perry also asked "why do I expect a 2 week old OS to be better than (however old Windows XP is)". That's because given a new machine I'd install a 2 week old Linux distribution and a 2.5 year old Windows distribution - they are both "the most up to date".
I ran a quick, responsive, usable desktop environment on a 286 at 10Mhz (uphill both ways)
What environment was that?
As Aristotle cleverly picked, GeoWorks Ensemble (however version 2 - http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/interfaces/geos/geoworks/gwe2). Let I not be compared to DrWho in his saying "I did it all 20 years ago on my 286", you can still get GeoWorks, which was called NewDeal Office at one point and is now the very ugly looking "BreadBox Ensemble". But I'm not using a 286 any more. Craig
consider useful. Why aren't people writing software to capture this market? Especially in the open source area, where people go on about how they associate free software with free hardware and speculate that people who can afford high end machines can afford software to run on them.
They are. And Gavin suggested a whole lot of solutions.
consider useful. Why aren't people writing software to capture this market? Especially in the open source area, where people go on about how they associate free software with free hardware and speculate that people who can afford high end machines can afford software to run on them.
They are. And Gavin suggested a whole lot of solutions.
Yep, I've been finding a whole load of 'slim' stuff with my embedded car mp3 player project. Perhaps craig your problem is not "there's no software for old computers" but "there's no mozilla for old computers," in which case you should go complaining to mozilla.org, not us :-)
Sid
... Your XP example doesn't surprise me at all though. What iteration of x86 was your Linux software compiled for? I mean X, your WM, your apps and the kernel? ...
Craig Box
I can only assume that it's an i686 kernel and i386 apps. Fairly standard. ...
Comparing WinXP vs i686 kernel+i386 apps is flawed. There appears to be an assumption in the Linux world that "the kernel is all that needs to be optimised -- the apps don't matter". I think this is an invalid asumption: the cpu spends much more time executing user space code. And it isn't just the apps, it is the X window system as well that needs to be compiled to the target arch. (I'm guessing, the graphics card driver you had was probably an appropriately compiled binary?) Your comparison was of WinXP running on a 500 mhz i686 and a Unix-like system running on a 500 mhz i386 (except for the tiny kernel). Perhaps you could test another distribution, say Yoper. Unfortunately, many reviews have the kernel/app compilation targets you assume. I suppose given the default binaries from many distributors, most people _are_ running X/Kde/OOo on old hardware. :-) /sid.
Comparing WinXP vs i686 kernel+i386 apps is flawed. There appears to be an assumption in the Linux world that "the kernel is all that needs to be optimised -- the apps don't matter". I think this is an invalid asumption: the cpu spends much more time executing user space code. And it isn't just the apps, it is the X window system as well that needs to be compiled to the target arch. (I'm guessing, the graphics card driver you had was probably an appropriately compiled binary?)
This is definately an area that I think a lot of distros could improve on. I mean who is realistically going to install and run Fedora on anything less than a i586 class CPU. All the stock packages should be compiled for i586 or better IMO.
Your comparison was of WinXP running on a 500 mhz i686 and a Unix-like system running on a 500 mhz i386 (except for the tiny kernel). Perhaps you could test another distribution, say Yoper.
Something that should also be taken into account is that GCC is far from the best optimising C/C++ compiler out there. The Intel and Microsoft compilers are probably able to squeeze in the order of 20-30% more performance out of some code. If the marketing is to be believed at least. I would estimate (without any emperical data) that they probably produce executables that are 10% faster overall.
Unfortunately, many reviews have the kernel/app compilation targets you assume. I suppose given the default binaries from many distributors, most people _are_ running X/Kde/OOo on old hardware. :-)
/sid.
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
* Oliver Jones <oliver(a)deeper.co.nz> [2004-05-24 11:52]:
Something that should also be taken into account is that GCC is far from the best optimising C/C++ compiler out there. The Intel and Microsoft compilers are probably able to squeeze in the order of 20-30% more performance out of some code. If the marketing is to be believed at least. I would estimate (without any emperical data) that they probably produce executables that are 10% faster overall.
The Microsoft compiler is not impressive at all. Intel's offerings are much better, but they're only in the 10% range in realworld tests. GCC has been getting better as well, so ICC's advantage is generally only in single-digit percentages at the time of writing. Of course, in certain highly specific scenarios (excercising cache and floating point math) it can produce code twice as fast as GCC's, but that's basically the domain of scientific number crunching and doesn't have any appreciable impact on the desktop. -- Regards, Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
On Monday 24 May 2004 22:08, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Oliver Jones <oliver(a)deeper.co.nz> [2004-05-24 11:52]:
Something that should also be taken into account is that GCC is far from the best optimising C/C++ compiler out there. The Intel and Microsoft compilers are probably able to squeeze in the order of 20-30% more performance out of some code. If the marketing is to be believed at least. I would estimate (without any emperical data) that they probably produce executables that are 10% faster overall.
The Microsoft compiler is not impressive at all. Intel's offerings are much better, ...
MS use an in-house compiler that is not Visual C/C++ (but some of whose technologies do filter down to the latter). /sid.
* Craig Box <craig(a)dubculture.co.nz> [2004-05-23 23:41]:
Games can offer a contrived example - while everyone loves Quake and its bretheren, the best selling game of all time is The Sims, which is hardly driving forth the 3D graphics industry!
And Deer Hunter. So which game sells or not is hardly a benchmark for anything.. except the tastelessness of mankind, possibly. -- Regards, Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
Incidentally the best selling series of games ever is FIFA by EA Sports. Regards A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Craig Box <craig(a)dubculture.co.nz> [2004-05-23 23:41]:
Games can offer a contrived example - while everyone loves Quake and its bretheren, the best selling game of all time is The Sims, which is hardly driving forth the 3D graphics industry!
And Deer Hunter. So which game sells or not is hardly a benchmark for anything.. except the tastelessness of mankind, possibly.
Did you even look at Feather ???? As i said, my P1 233 mobile is running firefox, that is mozilla. and yes thunderbird will work too. (ok not evolution) but I don't use thunderbird, as the compiled versions are 686 optimised, and I cant be bothered with recompiling it for i586. so thats my problem.... and I like syphleed anyway. Open Office runs fine, click one link and it installs to your hard drive over the internett... ( the cd is 64 meg so OO isn't on the cd) firefox is the same, VNC, Linneighborhood, xmms .... in short theres a lot there, and its easy to get a lot more. if you want speed it well worth looking at and fluxbox is faster than kde. you can make a bloated release, or you can make a speedy release. I run collegelinux (based on slackware 9.1 with kde3 ... etc.. fairy modern, albeit 2.6 is well in the works as its starting to date) on an amd K2 500 and its acceptable, on my DSE terminator its as responsive as windows ME on the same box. but I let KDE go, its too slow for my taste. So instead I use Fluxbox for me, and icewm for the windows users ( but even they prefer fluxbox now) so that it seems more like windows. both are fast and easy to use. On my Athlon 2600, I can tolerate KDE, but rarely use it as I have developed a liking of fluxbox. BTW - I am on the Colegelinux team, but the views are my own. Disclaimer ends. In short you need to look around and find the distro that suits you. If you have to download 3-6 CD's maybe its the wrong release. Craig Box wrote:
Wow, took at least four replies to get Damn Small Linux mentioned! :)
Short and sweet. Look up featherlinux. http://featherlinux.berlios.de or DSL - Damn Small Linux.
its a knoppix remaster of 64 megs, has wireless, fluxbox as the desktop, and no accelerated X but for wordprocessing , e-mail (sypleed) and browsing (dillo and I have installed firefox too) its more than fast enough. Vncviwer and lots of apps are standard, and you can live cd with save your personal stuff on pedrive, hard drive (fat32) or floppy, or install to hard drive and use it as your distro.
Thanks Gavin, but I don't want Sylpheed, I want Evolution or possibly Thunderbird. I don't want dillo, I want a Mozilla. And I want OpenOffice.org. I want equivalent functionality to what I would expect on a common Windows machine.
I know if you want to run tiny distributions on tiny hardware you can. What I want is to run modern applications on older hardware. If modern applications aren't architected to support this, then that is the problem.
Craig
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
Its been a while, but I think there may be a newer project that may interest you. At the moment its almost shut down as it just made the waiting list on distrowatch, and the site is overloaded. Its called beatrIX and its named after a cat, but that aside it linux, its less than 200 meg, its Gnome, its Evolution, Firefox, Gaim and Openoffice. They claim its "Small elegant, simple. Its a 0.1 and its currently only live cd, next month is HDD install, and after that its USB drives and others. Their test box is an Intel celeron 500 (sort of) and a whopping 128 meg or ram. (actually its a via epia series) SO its about the equivalent of a 7 year old machine. And its running new hardware. I should have the iso tomorrow, and I am trying to get a torrent or local mirror to carry it as soon as I can, otherwise, I am happy to provide ISO's for anyone interested.
I want Evolution or possibly Thunderbird. I don't want dillo, I want a Mozilla. And I want OpenOffice.org. I want equivalent functionality to what I would expect on a common Windows machine.
I know if you want to run tiny distributions on tiny hardware you can. What I want is to run modern applications on older hardware. If modern applications aren't architected to support this, then that is the problem.
Craig
Oops .this link may help although you will need to be VERY patient. http://www.watsky.net Linux 2.6.7 Gnome 2.6 Firefox Evolution Open office Writer Gaim. And the iso is 166 meg Gavin Denby wrote:
Its been a while, but I think there may be a newer project that may interest you.
At the moment its almost shut down as it just made the waiting list on distrowatch, and the site is overloaded.
Its called beatrIX and its named after a cat, but that aside it linux, its less than 200 meg, its Gnome, its Evolution, Firefox, Gaim and Openoffice.
They claim its "Small elegant, simple. Its a 0.1 and its currently only live cd, next month is HDD install, and after that its USB drives and others.
Their test box is an Intel celeron 500 (sort of) and a whopping 128 meg or ram. (actually its a via epia series) SO its about the equivalent of a 7 year old machine.
And its running new hardware.
I should have the iso tomorrow, and I am trying to get a torrent or local mirror to carry it as soon as I can, otherwise, I am happy to provide ISO's for anyone interested.
I want Evolution or possibly Thunderbird. I don't want dillo, I want a Mozilla. And I want OpenOffice.org. I want equivalent functionality to what I would expect on a common Windows machine.
I know if you want to run tiny distributions on tiny hardware you can. What I want is to run modern applications on older hardware. If modern applications aren't architected to support this, then that is the problem.
Craig
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
-- "Engineering is the art of modeling materials we do not wholly understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance." Dr A R Dykes.
participants (8)
-
A. Pagaltzis -
Craig Box -
Daniel Lawson -
Gavin Denby -
Matthias Dallmeier -
Oliver Jones -
Orion Edwards -
s swami